So begins "The Personal-Essay Boom Is Over," by Jia Tolentino (in The New Yorker). Tolentino discusses the rise and fall of these overly personal essays. One element of the story — of every story, really — is Trump. It's not that gynecologists are finding Trump's hair in vaginas, but the topics of "relationships, self-image, intimate struggle" seemed noticeably lacking in "broader social relevance." As the editor of the Awl and the Hairpin put it: "I want to encourage people to talk about mostly anything other than themselves."

Put simply, the personal is no longer political in quite the same way that it was. Many profiles of Trump voters positioned personal stories as explanations for a terrible collective act; meanwhile, Clinton’s purported reliance on identity politics has been heavily criticized. Individual perspectives do not, at the moment, seem like a trustworthy way to get to the bottom of a subject.... Writers seem less interested in mustering their own centrality than they were, and readers seem less excited at the prospect of being irritated by individual civilian personalities....

No more lost-tampon essays, in other words, in the age of Donald Trump....

So now Trump is to blame for inhibiting the personal expression of women. That awful man!

84 comments:

Women mustering their own centrality can be a lonely place. Not that I won't listen, and listen and listen. But gimme Camille Paglia every time. She sees what lies beyond her own centrality with a trained eye.

I would give feminists a pass on this. There are a ton of bad personal essays, mostly extended forms of navel gazing, that should have stayed in personal diary mode to avoid vexing and/or menacing the public.

However, I wouldn't say that most of these are by women.

Also, I wouldn't blame Trump for this madness, for the same reason I don't blame the boogie man or the Devil for bad results.

One great thing about the written word, is that it's the closest thing you can get to gender neutrality. You can tell if the writing is good or not, but often it's impossible to tell if the writer is male or female. In the modern era, that's a good thing, no?

Both were made into major movies. The girl can write. Engrossed in the beautiful stories of each book, you would not know whether the writer was male or female, except for the name "Laura" on the cover.

Dr. Michael K recommended a book about Hollywood, "You'll never eat lunch in this town again," by Julia Phillips. Again, the writing is exceptionally good. The stories recounted are pretty good too. The author, a certified trainwreck, is a great writer, and happens to be a female. She is an absolute mess, though, and died young at 57.

Speaking of personal essays featuring uncomfortable truths that seem “too important to be aired for an audience of strangers,” check out “My Family’s Slave” in this month’s Atlantic.

From NPR’s story on the essay: “Journalist Alex Tizon carried a secret his whole life . . . She lived with my family for 56 years. She raised me and my siblings, and cooked and cleaned from dawn to dark — always without pay," Tizon writes . . . "I was 11, a typical American kid, before I realized she was my family's slave."

“Lola was a domestic servant who had been with Tizon's family going back a whole generation. His family brought her with them when they immigrated to the U.S. in 1964 from the Philippines. From the outside she looked like part of the family. The reality was that Lola was forced to sleep in hallways or storage spaces. She was not allowed to go back to the Philippines to see her family, and she was isolated from the world. She worked from dawn until dark, and she took verbal abuse from both parents.

“Tizon struggled with this dark part of his family's past his entire life and was finally able to put Lola's experience into his own words. But the author died unexpectedly of natural causes at the age of 57 on March 23.

“Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg tells NPR's Rachel Martin that Lola came to live with the Tizons after Alex's grandfather gave her to Alex's mother as a gift.

“’This is all back in the Philippines. Lola came with them to America, stayed with them as in essence the family slave and then Alex essentially — and I use this word advisedly — but Alex inherited her from his dying mother,’ Goldberg says.”

You won't be surprised to learn that the essay, and the late journalist, are under fierce Social Justice Warrior attack.

Put simply, the personal is no longer political in quite the same way that it was. Many profiles of Trump voters positioned personal stories as explanations for a terrible collective act; meanwhile, Clinton’s purported reliance on identity politics has been heavily criticized. Individual perspectives do not, at the moment, seem like a trustworthy way to get to the bottom of a subject.... Writers seem less interested in mustering their own centrality than they were, and readers seem less excited at the prospect of being irritated by individual civilian personalities....

"Comrade, we must put away our petty personal concerns for the sake of The Revolution."

The now unchanging (unchangeable?) narrative that President Trump never tells the truth and always acts from nefarious, illegal motives tells me that all too many self-described educated and reasonable people have lost the ability to think and differentiate between and among cases. I voted for President, but not for either Trump or Clinton. There was a third choice here in Georgia. I keep seeing "Resist Hate" bumper stickers all over my very progressive small city. I would like to place a sticker along side them which reads: "Pray for the President without ceasing."Hate and violence have become all too much a part of the opposition to Trump. Knowing little history, they call themselves "The Resistance" -- dishonoring all those who in the past risked their lives in standing against totalitarianism. Shame on the puny Resisters of today. None of whom have probably missed a meal, while protesting and definitely have not had to go into hiding in order to escape with their lives from any Gestapo-like menace.

"The rationalization hamster is an analogy for the thought processes used by women to turn bad behavior and bad decisions into acceptable ones to herself and her friends. When a woman makes a bad decision, the hamster spins in its wheel (the woman’s thinking) and creates some type of acceptable reasons for that bad decision. The crazier the decision, the faster the hamster must spin in order to successfully rationalize away the insanity."

The authors of these personal essays are like the casual acquaintance who, after one Cosmopolitan too many, suddenly starts telling you about her fears that her husband is having an affair or about how her mother never approved of her or the coworker who comes into your office, closes the door and confines that she’s been really depressed since her divorce because the kids blame her. You nod sympathetically, but sit there feeling dismayed and uncomfortable because you are being drawn into an intimacy you don’t want or weren’t ready for. It’s still startling to me how quickly some women go from “I’m slightly acquainted with you and like you” to “you’re my new bestest girlfriend and confidant.”

In face-to-face encounters you have to politely nod and listen, but thank God, nobody can make me read about cat hairballs in someone’s vag, or other "relationships, self-image, intimate struggle" stories. The idea that your self image and intimate struggles are of interest to anybody but yourself and those closest to you is a conceit of pampered, silly women.

This is an example of an essay that is trying to force a change by declaring it to already have happened. For example, fashion essays will declare that a certain style of clothing is "over", but it isn't--the author just wants it to be over. The author in this case THINKS overly personal essays are passe and wants them to stop. The hope of such authors is that people's lemming instincts will cause them to follow what they perceive to be the crowd even if there is no crowd.

"Had President Donald Trump’s mistake remained a secret known only to our national security establishment (and of course the Russians ), the Islamic State group would probably never have learned of it. (Russia and the Islamic State are not exactly on speaking terms.) The Islamic State group learned about it only because current and former U.S. intelligence agents leaked it to the media, which published it. The Islamic State group may now use this information to track down and kill informers or double agents who may have provided the information to our ally. They may also speed up their plans to use laptops to blow up commercial airlines. None of this may have happened without the leak and publication.

The same may be true – though this is less certain – of our allies who secretly provide us intel, including the country that provided the intel that Trump disclosed to the Russians. The leak and publication may cause friendly intelligence agencies to be more cautious about sharing delicate material with us.

There can be little doubt, therefore, that the leak and publication of the Trump disclosures to the Russians may have caused more damage to our national security than the Trump disclosures alone had they remained secret. This reality raises fundamental questions about the costs and benefits of leaking and publishing leaks."

We are not allowed to question the hack press, even after they publish leaks that could get agents killed - because the greater good of hurting Trump comes first. You gotta crack a few eggs.

"From NPR’s story on the essay: “Journalist Alex Tizon carried a secret his whole life "

This is an interesting piece. I am familiar with the practice, and it does happen.

It needs some context from the other side of the Pacific.

This is a feudal holdover. Tizon's family, I believe, were landowners (gentry in all but formal title) with tenants. This was not unlike the hold the gentry had over the Russian peasantry. The traditional relationship was akin to being serfs, though that was never a matter of law, neither Spanish nor Philippine law ever recognized such obligations. The real hold, independent of custom, that landowners had over their tenants was debt. You could say these share-croppers were often debt-slaves. But more realistically under the custom of some regions they were a cross between serfs and followers of a tribal chief.

Anyway, the web of customary obligations included, often, providing personal service in a household. Servants have always been a fact of life over there, its very much an "Upstairs-Downstairs" or "Downton Abbey" sort of society on that level. Our own family has had servants continuously for at least 200 years that I know of. Servants are required to be paid by Philippine law, though not much, given adequate food and living quarters and are required to receive medical insurance and social security contributions on their behalf, plus mandated vacation and family leave, etc. You have your old family retainers - our housekeeper (majordoma) has served us at least 50 years, and often there is a family tradition of a country family or village having dibs on open positions in household employment for a certain elite clan. Very old-world.

However, back in the countryside of 70-80 years ago, this formal employment law was not always operative, laws in that country often being treated as helpful suggestions. The unpaid relationship is not unusual, though the servant in these unpaid cases is more usually a poor relation or an orphan (taken in as a charity), and young girls are kept on only until they find a husband.

The specific case is abusive, to a degree, that would not have been accepted in the old country - but if and only if the girl had objected, or simply left. To stay would have been to acquiesce in the arrangement. In other cases servants simply won't leave, as paid or unpaid the family is their livelihood, fearing that they would have no other, and it often does serve as their family if they haven't got anyone else.

Needless to say "Gone with the Wind" is remarkably easy to understand over there.

"...a terrible collective act." We Trump voters prevented the most crooked, dishonest and corrupt candidate to ever seek the office of the President from winning. We're fucking heroes, Awl and Hairpin editor. Fucking heroes.

It is the very fact that feminists are so quintessentially female in their thinking that annoys the hell out of me. It all boils down to having one's cake and eating it, too.

5/18/17, 1:07 PM

Exactly, mockturtle. The argument against women voting was that women were too concerned with the personal to be able to understand the wider world of politics and economics and world affairs. "You just leave that for the menfolk, little ladies."

And here we are, a century later, and feminists are focused on their lady parts and self image and self, self, self. And feeeeeeellllings. I think they believe they're not like genteel Edwardian ladies because they talk about tampons and hairballs in their vags (yuck!). They mistake being crude for being "liberated."

I was sitting with a group of co-workers at lunch, and the conversation moved to Donald Trump. I took the opportunity to tell them my son's principle: every conversation ends up discussing Donald Trump. There was a silence. Then one of them asked, a little nervously, "How do you stop?" "You can't," I said.

If your cat sheds profusely and you're in the habit of sitting around naked with your cat nestled right up against your cooch and you're not big on personal hygiene, well, maybe. But that's not something I would advertise if I were the author.

I have been thinking for some time that part of the Trump experience is forcing people to reevaluate the way they think of themselves and their community. I don't think anyone has gotten very far yet, but we are certainly migrating away from the constant talk of how we should be coddling this or that minority as the critical issue of the day. We may be migrating toward more "results for the majority" discussions, partly because there is a segment that expects results fro Trump and partly because there is a segment that is busy opposing Trump results. Trump seems to have no personal problem with the LGBTQ community, nor does he seem to want to promote those causes above those of other average Americans. Getting away from the Dems' identity politics with its emphasis on small. odd groups and thinking about things that affect large segments of the population - taxes, health care, immigration, jobs - has a lot to do wth the potential change from writing about the "I" to writing about the "we".

exiledonmainstreet said...It is the very fact that feminists are so quintessentially female in their thinking that annoys the hell out of me. It all boils down to having one's cake and eating it, too.

5/18/17, 1:07 PM

Exactly, mockturtle. The argument against women voting was that women were too concerned with the personal to be able to understand the wider world of politics and economics and world affairs. "You just leave that for the menfolk, little ladies."

"From NPR’s story on the essay: “Journalist Alex Tizon carried a secret his whole life "

To expand a few points - "Lola" in this case is not a name - it means "Grandma".

Tizon is one of those Chinese-mestizo names. In some regions successful Chinese merchants assimilated, married into the gentry and became landowners. Chinese mixing with Filipinos goes back a very long way. There are many styles of these mixed names. So there is something of an ethnic angle here.

Feudalism, and serfdom and slavery, are not Spanish imports. These were features of precolonial Malay-tribal society. Ref, for the interested, "Barangay", William Henry Scott, is the near-essential reference.

I took the opportunity to tell them my son's principle: every conversation ends up discussing Donald Trump.

My experience is that it is the liberals who cannot refrain from bringing Trump into every conversation. Trump is living rent free in their heads.

I'll be sitting with some friends watching the game and eating nachos and one of the liberals in the group will come in, sit down, and immediately start discussing the latest Trump outrage they learned about from the NYT that morning. Most of us try to ignore it and get back to discussing if the pitcher is tired and should he be relieved.

A Swiss NGO was financing road building in the lowlands of Nepal, using mostly hand labor so they could maximize the amount of people they could hire. The purpose of this was one, to build a road, of course, and two, use the building of the road as an opportunity to employ poor Nepalese so that they in turn could use the wages to pay off their debts. Generational debt was (and may still be) a serious problem. There were (relatively) rich families who loaned out money and many many more poor families that owed money, and the debt was, as I said, generational.

However, there was a problem with the scheme. While the wages were being paid, the debts were not being reduced. My professor was hired by the NGO to investigate why this was so.

The answer she found, was that the poor families could not do math. Or read. They paid whatever the debt holder said they owed. There was never any question of paying off the debt. At least not as far as the debt holder was concerned.

It's very possible a lot of Liberals would be less fond of Hillary if (God forbid) she had been elected. They carry around the Ideal Hillary that the campaign was trying in vain to sell. Lefties, OTOH, still despise her almost as much as they do Trump.

Yep. The leftwing of the Democrat party (which is very leftwing indeed) has not liked the Clintons since shortly after the 1994 election when Bill was forced to "triangulate." That is, move to the right. And Hillary was blamed for screwing up health care reform.

According to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator psychology, feeling (as opposed to thinking) as a primary function is much more dominant in females than males (and so is judging over perceiving, as it happens). Just something I found interesting in the context of the linked essays and the main point of the op.

I systematically read each of the linked essays, against my better judgment, starting with the one whose subject I was somewhat familiar with (Cat Marnell), to the least familiar and the (potentially) most educational (Victorian era), to the inane and relatively innocuous ("I'm Not Going to Pretend I'm Poor..."). I'd planned on stopping there but morbid curiosity got the better of me and I read the tampon and the cat hair ones, in that order. Then I decided to go for broke and read the introspective and macabre one, but it appears xojane replaced that essay with an apology for posting it in the first place. As far as the death of the personal narrative is concerned, a leaning in the direction of learning over relating sounds like a good one but I'm afraid the new essay writing trend is more about sarcastic privilege shaming and sjw-mongering (see reductress.com for proof of this).

Etienne, it wouldn't bother me a bit if women lost the right to vote. Our country was probably better off without it. Throughout history women have played important and even pivotal roles in human affairs and there have always been the exceptional women who have successfully held the reins of leadership and political power. But to give the vote to women has meant to enfranchise the puerile and the petty, the asinine antics of the suffragettes and the pussy-hats.

I pity the poor liberals with the Trump stuck in their mind like a hairball in their vahina, with ten NYT stories about Trump stuck in their memory like the time they lost ten tampons in .

And the stories that are coming out of the Pussy Resistance - so courageous, so aware, such brilliance:

"One time I saw a Trump supporter and I shouted "you suck" from across the street."

"I found out an employee supported Trump so I fired her without explaining why since what I did was illegal. The bitch is really having trouble now supporting her children and I'm just so damn glad and proud."

"I used to make self-absorbed comments about myself 24/7 and no one listened but now I make self-absorbed comments about how Trump bothers me 24/7 and I get my story published in the Atlantic and everywhere. So I'm glad he's President but, of course, I don't say THAT to the Mother Jones reporter. I'm woke."

"I don't find all-Trump all-the-time easy. Sometimes I wish I was a conservative and supported him because they are always going to the lake when I'm going to marches and talking to each other when I'm out getting hoarse with chanting. My ex said the Resistance was like signing up for Publishers Clearing House subscriptions - more and more stuff floods in and more and more people want money. But I'm proud that the Democrats have raised a lot of money from me because I don't have much, so that shows how awful Donald Trump is, that they need my money to hold him back from enslaving women. "

Blogger mockturtle said..."Etienne, it wouldn't bother me a bit if women lost the right to vote. Our country was probably better off without it. Throughout history women have played important and even pivotal roles in human affairs and there have always been the exceptional women who have successfully held the reins of leadership and political power. But to give the vote to women has meant to enfranchise the puerile and the petty, the asinine antics of the suffragettes and the pussy-hats."

Want to take the vote away from women? Since mock-woman doesn't respect her right to vote, start with those women who wish they were men, can't identify with women in general and hate their own sex, like mock-woman.

Blogger Inga said... "It is the very fact that feminists are so quintessentially female in their thinking that annoys the hell out of me. It all boils down to having one's cake and eating it, too." Sounds like mock-woman is jealous that feminists are more feminine and womanly than she is. Too bad she wasn't born a man, as she truly seems uncomfortable in her female skin.--Difference between "female in their thinking" and femininity.For instance..pussy hats..

mockturtle said...Etienne, it wouldn't bother me a bit if women lost the right to vote."

Well, eventually, it might be a moot point anyway, since the Muslims Inga loves so much don't believe in women's rights. My own theory is that liberal women really can't stand pathetic beta male liberal men and basically wish to be enslaved by alphas. Hence the popularity of "50 Shades of Grey" among the Dem women I know. Since they can't have handsome billionaires, they'll take Muslim men rather that the pallid "feminist" dweebs they have now.

In Germany, a leftist woman said that even if she were raped by an immigrant she wouldn't report it because she wouldn't people to think Muslim men, are, you know, violent or anything. The weak secular leftist men, who believe in nothing and will fight for nothing, will become extinct and their women will - happily I think - return to the 7th century.